State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mrs.Kanta Tikkha vs Chief Officer, Nagpur Housing And ... on 28 November, 2025
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
CIRCUIT BENCH NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/CB2/27/A/16/2024
MRS.KANTA TIKKHA
PRESENT ADDRESS - FLAT NO. 3 , BLDG, A-1 VRINDAVAN , HENESSEY MARG , CIVIL
LINES,NAGPUR-440001 FLAT NO. 3 , BLDG, A-1 VRINDAVAN , HENESSEY MARG
,,MAHARASHTRA.
.......Appellant(s)
Versus
CHIEF OFFICER, NAGPUR HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
PRESENT ADDRESS - GRIHNIRMAN BHAVAN, NEAR NEW MLA HOSTEL ,CIVIL LINES,
NAGPUR. ,MAHARASHTRA.
ESTATE MANAGER II
PRESENT ADDRESS - GRIHNIRMAN BHAVAN ,NEAR NEW MLA HOSTEL CIVIL
LINES,NAGPUR ,MAHARASHTRA.
.......Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MRS. KALYANI KAPSE , PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE MS. SHAILA D. WANDHARE , MEMBER
FOR THE APPELLANT:
ADVOCATE NILAM TIKKA FOR THE APPELLANT/COMPLAINANT AND
FOR THE RESPONDENT:
LEARNED ADVOCATE NITNAWARE FOR THE RESPONDENT/OPPOSITE PARTIES.
DATED: 28/11/2025
ORDER
PER MS.SHAILA WANDHARE, HON'BLE MEMBER
1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant/original complainant, Kanta Tikka, being aggrieved by the orderpassed on 12/01/2024 in Consumer Complaint No.CC/916/2022 (for short as "impugned order") by the learnedDistrict Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Nagpur (for short as "learned District Commission"), vide Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
2. The parties of the appealare hereinafter referred to by their original nomenclature as complainant and opposite parties respectively for better appreciation.
3. The case of the complainant that emerges from the statement made in the complaint is that she had purchased Bunglow No.H-13 admeasuring about 5500 sq. ft., situated on Plot No.H-13 in Survey Nos.142, 154 and 155 within the HIG Scheme at Waddhamna, Nagpur under the jurisdiction of the Nagpur Municipal Corporation and the Nagpur Improvement Trust. The scheme had been floated by the Opposite Parties (O.Ps.), who held undivided share and interest in the said land. She had paid the entire consideration of Rs.22,96,530/- by 27/01/2014 as required under the agreement dated 22/09/2009. Under the agreement, the O.Ps. had agreed to execute the sale deed on or before 25/12/2018. However, despite repeated requests, the O.Ps. did not execute the sale deed and informed her that a 'No Objection Certificate' from the competent authority had not been received. She also stated that when she inspected the bungalow, she found it in a neglected and damaged condition with missing doors and windows, broken kitchen and sanitary fittings, and overgrown weeds. She issued a legal notice on 17/11/2021, but the O.Ps. did not respond. She therefore alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps. Thus, she sought rectification of defects and execution of the sale deed or, alternatively, refund of Rs.22,96,774/- with interest at the rate of 25% per annum with compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and litigation costs of Rs.1,00,000/-.
4. The Opposite Parties (O.Ps.) resisted the claim before the learned District Commission. They admitted the agreement and the amount received from the complainant and expressed readiness to execute the sale deed. They contended that, they were unable to execute the sale deeddue to non-issuance of the occupancy certificate and No Objection Certificate by NMRDA.They stated that the proposal for extra items was sanctioned on 07/04/2022 and that external development work was required to be completed within six months for issuance of the occupancy certificate explaining that the bungalow scheme involved construction of 45 sq.mt. units on 5000-7500 sq.ft. plots valued at approximately Rs.50-60 lakhs. They further submitted that approvals had been granted on 12/09/2019 and revised on 25/03/2022, but completion was delayed due to the hilly nature of the land with a 5-6 metre level difference making external development difficult. They also contended that there was no cause of action, the complainant was not a consumer and the complaint filed in 2022 was time-barred as the offer was issued in 2013 adding that they had offered a refund which the complainant refused. Therefore, they prayed that the complaint deserved dismissal with costs.
5. After considering the evidence of the parties and their documents filed in support thereof,the learned District Commission withits impugned order dated 12/01/2024 in Consumer Complaint No.CC/916/2022ordered to be partly allowed the consumer complaint thereby directing O.Ps. to refund a sum of Rs.22,96,530/- along with interest thereon at the rate of 9% from the date of last payment till its realization and compensation of Rs.50,000/- with cost of litigation of Rs.25,000/-.
6. The complainant preferred this appeal on the grounds that the learned District Commission failed to apply the law of precedent particularly the judgment of this State Commissionin Mr. Vijay Kumar Bhatia vs. Nagpur Housing and Area Development Board (CC No.16/121, decided on 16/01/2020). The principle of restitution in integrum embodied in Sections 39(c) and (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court guidelines in V. Krishnakumar vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (Appeal No.8065 of 2009 decided on 01/07/2015) and Malay Kumar Ganguly vs. Sukumar Mukherjee (2009) SCC 221 were not properly applied. The learned District Commission failed to consider the total consideration paid having omitted one installment of Rs.4,24,306/-rendering the impugned judgment erroneous.On these grounds, the complainant prayed to set aside the impugned order dated 12/01/2024 and allow the complaint with granting relief with interest, compensation and costs as prayed for in the interest of justice.
7. We have heard the oral arguments advanced by learned Advocate Nilam Tikka for the appellant/complainant and learned Advocate Nitnaware for the respondent/Opposite Parties. We have also taken into account the written notes of arguments filed on record by the respective parties. We have further carefully perused the entire record and proceedings in the present appeal.
8. On the rival contention of the parties available on record, the following points arise for our determination and we have recorded our findings against each of them as follows;
Sr.No. Points Findings
1. Whether the impugned order dated
12/01/2024passed by the learned District
... In theNegative.
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
Nagpur in Consumer Complaint
No.CC/916/2022suffers from any infirmity or
illegality and needs any interference?
2. What Order? ... As per final
order.
REASONS
AS TO POINT NO.1 AND 2:
9. In this appeal, the complainant alleged that she had purchased Bungalow No.H-13 at Waddhamna and paid Rs.22,96,530/-, yet the O.Ps. failed to execute the sale deed and delivered the bungalow in a damaged condition amounting to deficiency in service. The O.Ps., however, denied deficiency stating they were ready to execute the sale deed but could not due to non-issuance of required certificates by NMRDA, delayed development work, time-bar and their prior refund offer.The learned District Commission partly allowed the complaint and directed refund with interest and compensation. The complainant then preferred this appeal alleging improper application of precedent, misapplication of restitution principles and omission of an installment of Rs.4,24,306/-.
10. After examining the rival pleadings, documents and the impugned order, it becomes clear enough that the primary grievance of the complainant in this appeal pertains to two aspects.First, the omission by the learned District Commission to consider an installment of Rs.4,24,306/- while determining the total amount paid and second, the failure to correctly apply the principle of 'restitutio in integrum' which underpins the grant of just, fair and complete relief under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
11. On reappreciation of the material on record and after considering the documents filed by both parties, it is clear that the documents, particularly the letter dated 08/12/2022 issued by the Estate Officer-2 of the O.Ps. and placed at page No.32 of the appeal memo, sets out in categorical terms that the complainant had made six payments towards the consideration of Bungalow No.H-13, totaling Rs.22,96,530/-. These payments include the initial amount of Rs.1,75,000/- paid on 19/09/2009 followed by five installments of Rs.4,24,306/- each paid between 03/06/2014 and 03/09/2014. These all entries are duly acknowledged by separate receipt numbers. This official communication from the O.Ps. removes any scope for ambiguity and conclusively establishes that all five installments of Rs.4,24,306/- were part of the total consideration received by the O.Ps. for the said bungalow.
12. From the material on record ascertaining the first issue raised by the complainant about the omission to consider an installment of Rs.4,24,306/- while determining the total amount, it is evident that the allegation is not supported by any precise particulars or documentary proof. The complainant has not specified which particular installment out of the five payments of Rs.4,24,306/- was allegedly omitted, nor has she produced any receipt, date, or supporting entry to establish such omission. In contrast, the official letter dated 08/12/2022 issued by the Estate Officer-2 of the O.Ps., placed at page No.32 of the appeal record, clearly acknowledges all six payments amounting to Rs.22,96,530/- including the initial amount of Rs.1,75,000/- and the five installments of Rs.4,24,306/- each paid between 30/01/2014 and 03/09/2014. This document emanating from the O.Ps. themselves conclusively reflects the full receipt of the consideration amount for Bungalow No.H-13 and leaves no room for ambiguity regarding the inclusion of all installments in the total figure. Therefore, in the absence of any contrary material or specific evidence from the complainant, the plea that one installment of Rs.4,24,306/- was omitted from consideration cannot be accepted and stands unsubstantiated.
13. Now, we are coming to the second issue as the failure to correctly apply the principle of 'restitutio in integrum' which underpins the grant of just, fair and complete relief under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
14. At the outset, it is just to carefully gone through the judgment relied upon by the complainant in support of her contention. In V. Krishnakumar vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.8065 of 2009, decided on 01/07/2015), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while discussing the 'principle of restitutio in integrum' observed that compensation in medical negligence cases must place the injured person "in the same position as he would have been if he had not sustained the wrong," The Hon'ble Supreme Court also held that this principle "must necessarily result in compensating the aggrieved person for the financial loss suffered, the pain and suffering undergone, and the future liability arising from the disability caused,"
thereby guiding the computation of just and adequate compensation. In Malay Kumar Ganguly vs. Sukumar Mukherjee (2009) SCC 221, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reaffirmed that compensation in medical negligence cases is governed by the principle of restitution in integrum observing that compensation "is based on the principle of restitution in integrum... that a person entitled to damages should, as nearly as possible, get that sum of money which would put him in the same position as he would have been if he had not sustained the wrong."The Hon'ble Supreme Court also noted that, in determining compensation, "the Commission must... bear in mind all these relevant facts and circumstances," including pecuniary and non- pecuniary losses such as loss of income, medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and loss of expectation of life. In Mr. Vijay Kumar Bhatia vs. Nagpur Housing and Area Development Board (CC No.16/121, decided on 16/01/2020), this State Commission held that prolonged failure of the O.Ps. to construct the bungalow and deliver possession entitled the complainant to refund of the entire amount with interestobserving that "the complainant would be entitled to claim refund of the amount together with interest at the rate of 14.25 percent per annum from the date of the payment till realization," and also directing that "in the event the amounts are not paid within 3 months, the amounts shall carry interest at the enhanced rate of 18 percent per annum." Keeping in mind the above observations in mind, we carefully appreciate the material on record.
15. In the present case, the complainant's money remained with the O.Ps. for an unduly long period, the sale deed was not executed despite full payment, the bungalow was allegedly found in a damaged and neglected condition, and no prompt remedial action was taken by the O.Ps. The learned District Commission ordered refund with interest at 9% per annum, the complainant contended that this rate was unfair and inadequate in view of the prolonged delay and the hardship suffered. As per the complainant, these circumstances warranted a more comprehensive application of the principle of 'restitutio in integrum' to ensure that the complainant was placed in the position she would have occupied had the deficiency in service not occurred. However, the observations laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in V. Krishnakumar (supra) and Malay Kumar Ganguly (supra), and as applied by this Commission in Vijay Kumar Bhatia (supra) does not mandate a fixed or uniformly high rate of interest but instead requires that the relief granted must be fair, compensatory and proportionate to the facts of each case. Further, it is important to note the observation made by the Three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Sushma Ashok Shiroor (Civil Appeal No. 6044 of 2019, decided on 7 April 2022). The Hon'ble Supreme Court approved interest at 9% per annum as a fair restitutionary rate in housing refund matters, emphasizing proportionality and the need to balance both parties' positions. Considering the nature of the present dispute, the absence of malafide conduct attributed to the O.Ps. beyond administrative delay and the principle that compensation must be reasonable and not punitive, the interest rate of 9% per annum awarded by the learned District Commission is just, reasonable and in line with the prevailing legal standards governing restitution in consumer matters.
16. AWe have carefully perused the material on record, which clearly shows that the learned District Commission correctly appreciated the evidence regarding the payments made by the complainant, properly addressed the allegations of deficiency in service and awarded refund with interest and compensation in a manner consistent with the applicable legal principles and judicial precedents.There is no infirmity, perversity, or illegality in the findings recorded.In view of the totality of the facts and circumstances, the impugned order of the learned District Commission does not call for interference of this Commission. Thus, we answer the point No.1 in the negative and in response to point No.2, we proceed to pass the following order;
ORDER
1. The present appeal is hereby dismissed.
2. A copy of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost.
..................J KALYANI KAPSE PRESIDING MEMBER ..................J SHAILA D. WANDHARE MEMBER